|
     |
The Scientific Dimension of Design in the Universe and BeyondDr. Bilal Masud
Working of Science (Physics, Biological or
Social-Ordered or Random) means a Design. Our observations show us much regularity around us. This includes periodicity and the regularity pointed out by science. Periodicity means phenomena repeating in time like the alteration of day and night, motion of stars, seasonal changes and regular human pulsation. Moreover, science has pointed out examples of extraordinary precision (or “fine tuning”) in the design of the universe such as the precise balance of different forces in the universe to guarantee the emergence of stars and life, the precise cancellation of electrical charges in an atom, precise parameters like temperature, size, and magnetic field of the earth and of its atmosphere like the oxygen percentage and the Van Allen Belt, the precise equality of the wavelength of light emitted from sun and the wavelength suitable for life, photosynthesis and vision, the extraordinary thermal properties of the water, and the extraordinary properties of different elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen necessary for life etc. Design is a proper word to describe this aspect of the universe. Human knowledge is filled with many such descriptions of design. But in the human actual experience, such regularities constitute only a small fraction. For most of the phenomena in human experience, science is able to describe one aspect but not other and thus there does remain drama, suspense, queries, sports and discussions in life. For example, consider tossing of a coin. Here science gives a good prediction about what happens in a large number of tosses, namely almost as many times head would appear as tail. But science is not able to tell on which side a particular coin would fall. Thus science deals with one aspect (collective) of the phenomenon, but cannot describe the other (individual) aspect. Those believing in what is termed scientism prefer to rely on the belief that one day science will be able to describe the individual tossing as well. It is very obvious that science is presently far from giving such a complete account of reality. But believers of scientism want others to wait till the day science “will become complete” and do not want them to point out the present limitations of science (for example, inability to describe the individual tosses). In demanding this, believers in scientism show an intellectual dishonesty: they want others to wait till some day in far future but they themselves do not wait for any future before declaring science to be complete. Thus either both sides should wait for some day in remote future, which is not possible, or both sides should consider ability of science in foreseeable future only. This means science should be thought to have potential which we realistically expect. Even if, for the sake of discussion, we consider a day when science will be able to tell on which side a particular coin would fall, it seems clear that then science will have some other puzzle to solve. Basic point is that there will always be drama, suspense, queries, sports and discussions in life,and philosophy should address this common situation. The day science will be able to answer all questions (such as on which side a coin would fall and practically more important ones mentioned below) would be the day when everything in future would be known and there would be no more any drama, suspense, queries, sports and discussions in life. Philosophy should address the realistic nature of human situation and not a far-fetched situation when science will have eliminated all the drama, suspense, queries, sports and discussions in life. Avoiding, thus, the unfortunately exaggerated expectations from science, it is clear that biological and social sciences can deal with many common features and habits of human beings, but these sciences in their very nature are unable to give any useful account of personal information, likes and dislikes of different persons. In biology, it can be argued that science (in form of Darwinism etc.) is able to describe the survival of the fittest, but not arrival of the fittest completely. Here, Darwinism and Creationism are presented as two rival scientific theories. But actually the discussion is only an illustration of the common situation of science being able to describe one aspect of a phenomenon and not other. Creationism is not a scientific theory (as this does not rely on a process) but just an indication of the limitations of Darwinism. (A belief in human spirit also has a similar status.) And the way Darwinism is used with exaggerations, it has become “scientism in biology.” It should claim only what it has described or predicted if it is to become a proper scientific theory. Having considered abilities and inabilities of science, let us now analyze what do abilities of science imply. The very fact that science is able to describe an aspect of a phenomenon means that the aspect is subject to some rule. In case of tossing of a coin, the aspect that science is able to describe is the collective aspect. Thus, although tossing of coin is termed a random phenomenon, giving the impression of “no design”, there is design in the totality of many tosses and the job of the science is to deal with this “design in the collection” only. Thus if there is a partial or full design in the universe, science can describe it partially or fully. And only if there is a design of some kind or other science can describe it. Nothing other than a design is the subject matter of science. No one can deny that much. The only difference of opinion is that those who think that the word ‘design’ has religious connotations may well like to use some other word like (presence or absence of) a ‘pattern’.
Design can not explain or create itself; Design
illustrates work of a Designer. The next question is if science can tell why there is a design (or pattern) in the universe at all? That is, can science tell us why science is there at all (as a successful effort)? Because of the success of science during the last few centuries, scientists were so much esteemed that they took in the recent history an additional role of telling why science works? For example, both falling of a stone and movement of moon are explained through the theory of gravitation. But the theory of gravitation is actually an indication of regularity, and not an answer to the question of why there are regularities at all. Scientists may now like to explain gravitation in the form of proposed particles called gravitons or in terms of theories like the quantum gravity, and so on. But these are also just some other regularities, and the question remains if this whole programme (explaining observations by gravity and gravity by graviton and so on) tells why science works? It simply cannot be an answer as this explains regularity in terms of others and other in terms of still another, but not tell why there are regularities in general. Science points out equations that are obeyed in reality, but cannot tell why reality is forced to obey any equation at all! In early 20th century an effort was made to complete such an explanation for perhaps the most straightforward of the whole knowledge, namely arithmetic. But what resulted is known as Gödel’s theorem saying that “for any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetic truths, an arithmetic statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed”. Because of this failure, it is now generally accepted that no human piece of knowledge or discipline can be both consistent and complete. Thus it is wrong to expect science to be a complete knowledge of the universe. Hence the ultimate explanation of the universe has to be beyond science. And such an explanation has always been available: there is a Designer of the universe. Those not agreeing to this ultimate explanation term this explanation a metaphysical and hence become sceptical about its validity. Keeping in mind the presently accepted definition of science and metaphysics (by Karl Popper1), this objection means that “a scientific explanation may be incomplete but we are able to test it, whereas human beings are not able to test a metaphysical explanation of the universe like the Creator.” It is indeed the case that a metaphysical explanation cannot be tested by laboratory experiments or mathematical calculations. But does it mean that the human reason is not able to say anything about a metaphysical statement? A simple example quoted by Popper2 may suffice to point out that it is wrong to think that “anything goes” in metaphysics. Consider two statements “black crows exist” and “white crows exist”. Neither of the statements can be rejected (or tested) by human observations or calculations. Hence both are metaphysical statements according to the presently accepted definition of science. But obviously the status of both is not same: “black crows exist” can be verified and illustrated by lots of observations whereas “white crows exist” has never got a single verification. Similarly, 2+2=4 cannot be tested experimentally and hence remains a metaphysical statement. But obviously this can be illustrated by for example 2 books and 2 books make 4 books and hence is better statement than 2+2=5. The above analysis of metaphysics can help clarify the meaning of the use of scientific information (like “the precise balance of different forces in the universe to guarantee the emergence of stars and life,….., and the extraordinary properties of different elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen necessary for life etc.”) and theories like Big Bang theory to argue for the existence of the Creator of universe. Such information and theories verify and illustrate a Designer who is responsible for the design pointed out by science. An aspect of this possible logical status is that we Muslims should not consider a theory (like Big Bang) Islamic and some other un-Islamic just because the first one illustrates the existence of Creator and the other does not. For Islamic purpose each is just an example that can be used for a particular piece of preaching, but the actual message is not tied to anyone. If a scientific theory presently serving as a good illustration for our beliefs is in future rejected for technical reasons, we should simply find some other illustration and not try to defend an “Islamic” theory just because of religious reasons. Let no scientific theory be accepted or rejected through Islamic arguments. It is right that theories like Darwinian’s or Modern Social Sciences’ are used against religion. But that is because of an exaggerated use of the theories beyond their proper regime of applicability and not because of anything anti-Islamic in the content of the theory or in social sciences. Hence we should not reject such theories through Islamic arguments, but just point out exaggeration in its use. In other words, theories like Darwinism and Modern Social Sciences’ are not un-Islamic; only their uses are un-Islamic. This is not very different to saying that TV is not un-Islamic; only its use can or cannot be un-Islamic. If these theories are used only in the universe of discourse they are meant to describe in their nature, these would not be un-Islamic. For example, rather than rejecting modern economics as capitalist . we should at least consider the possibility of using it (or only techniques developed in it or accounting, etc.) for Islamic purposes.
Design through unrelated decisions, or Design through a
System? Suppose a religious preacher uses “the precise balance of different forces in the universe to guarantee the emergence of stars and life,….., and the extraordinary properties of different elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen necessary for life etc.” to prove the existence of God and you accept the argument. Then a scientist points out that all this is result of some scientific theory or a few theories. Will you think that the scientist is working against religion? And should scientist think that he has defeated religion? It is not a hypothetical possibility; history of science and religion is full of clashes generated in this kind of situation; see the topic of “God of the gaps” argument. Religious groups have suffered many such defeats, and in reaction many religious persons have become against science that they think is responsible for such attacks on their beliefs. The clash would not arise if both sides accept the possibility that God could have created the Design in universe partially through a well-defined system, namely the theory claimed to explain “the precise balance of different forces in the universe to guarantee the emergence of stars and life,….., and the extraordinary properties of different elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen necessary for life .” As a practical case, we should analyze if we Muslims are ready to consider this possibility of “(partial) Design through a system”, as otherwise an unspoken clash between Islam and scientific spirit would continue. I want to clarify that I do not mean to say that Muslims should accept this as the only possibility. But they should consider this possibility. This consideration does not contradict any statement in Quarn and Sunnah provided it is believed that the Designer has not become bound by the dynamics of the system he has created. So, the problems to be discussed are
1)
A belief in the “(partial) Design
through a system” contradicts a popular spoken or even
sometime written understanding of God as a Person making
idiosyncratic decisions. Such a view regards even
partial “Design through a system” against the
Omnipotence of God.
2)
How a belief in “(partial) Design
through a system” accepts Devine Action, a belief that
God is still Active Controller of the system he has
created. Perhaps a good answer to the first
question can be obtained after understanding what
Ibn-e-Taymiya3 has taught us about the mutual
relation of Islamic and scientific statements:
There cannot be such a contradiction if the two
statements are certain (qat’i).
(This claim of Islam, made in the As for the second question, it is to be noted that the main reason in favour of “Design through system” is the scientific evidence. But it should also not be neglected. Science in its nature is not a complete knowledge. It was mentioned in the beginning of this article that for most of the phenomena in life, science is able to describe only one aspect. Another way of putting these aspects is that when science makes a prediction and also corresponding detection, science successfully describes the connection between prediction and its successful (if so) verification. But if either prediction or corresponding detection is missing, and actually for a huge majority of events in the universe one or other is missing, logically speaking science cannot be sure of what is happening; it is only an unverified expectation (though a plausible one) that science works even our detectors are not there to see if it is working. Hence, believing in the creation of a system does not imply that we believe Creator to be bound by the dynamics of the system. Thus we can simply believe in both “(partial) Design through a system” and (always active) Devine action; the rules of science do not keep the Creator of science within any limits even while all the events caught by the scientific predictions and observations remain normally obeying the rules of science through an arrangement unknown to us. In no way it is argued here that for each of the events not predicted or observed, there has been a violation of science. The whole point is that for such events we cannot know for sure, meaning we cannot say if there has been a violation of science just like we cannot say if there has not been a violation. It is also not denied here that for unobserved and unpredicted events we should basically expect scientific laws to be valid. Only proofs (like the ones in mathematics and logic) have been indicated to be lacking.
Conclusions: 1-The objective metaphysics provided by Islam can use scientific theories for illustrating its message. But the basic message is not tied to any theory. Islam completes the explanation of the universe partially provided by Islam, and science provides the examples that can be used for illustrating the Islamic beliefs. Thus Islam and the scientific mentality complement each other, rather than clashing. 2-If there is a clash between one understanding of Islam and scientific thinking, we should see which side has stronger evidence---no matter what is the nature of the evidence. 3-Scientific curiosity and quest for worldly knowledge should be accepted as motivations for doing science, in addition to other motivations like “science for strength of Muslim Ummah” and “science for copying”. Presently these kinds of motivations for doing science are absent from a typical Muslim’s psychology; this seems to be the main reason for backwardness of Muslims in the present world. REFERENCES AND END NOTES
|
